Jump to content

Talk:Superzoom

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Superzoom cameras?

[edit]

Some Bridge digital cameras ive hard on marketing may fall under the category of 'superzoom cemeras' and describes as such, due to their large zoom ranger compared to normal compact/Live-preview_digital_cameras.

Some updating needed?

[edit]

Isn't it getting a little out-of-date now to suggest that 4× zooms and upwards are "unconventionally large"? My camera, for example (a Canon PowerShot A710IS) has a 6× zoom, but is not considered a superzoom, bridge or prosumer model. And that's not even a current model. (Yes, I know this article is about SLRs, but where do cameras like mine fit in? Bridge camera is just not the right place.) Loganberry (Talk) 00:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very out of date now. 4x is the norm for point and shoots. Many of the more expensive versions have 10x and Bridge Cameras such as the Pentax X70 or Nikon Coolpix P90 both advertise 24x SLR-like (super) zoom. According to the article 20x is high end. Obviously this is so outdated the facts are beginning to be plain wrong! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.190.200.77 (talk) 01:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the article to only classify double digit zooms as "superzooms" and removed a lot of low zoom ratio lenses from that huge, superfluous product list. 69.25.29.125 (talk) 19:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Synthesis

[edit]

Added Synthesis tag to the article because there is lots of description of a type of lens (Superzoom) but no reliable (or even unreliable) sources making these claims or describing a class of lens "Superzoom". There needs to be sources describing this as a real type, not a hodgepodge of references to articles or manufacturing docs describing high zoom lenses. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You want to question the article title and its sense?
Thats not the right tag for your reason. Again: Inline tags are better, as they can be related to the argument itself.
Don't be vague. Find an exact reference if you think there is a reliable source giving the ABSOLUTELY right, FINAL answer.
IMHO too much tag and words for a simple figure. Do you like discussions which can never be solved? Tagremover (talk) 03:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Available sources do not use the term "Super Zoom" at all. Recovering one of the unreadable sources[1] shows only usage, no definition. None of these are reliable sources. No published reliable sources and using published sources where the editor has assembled (synthesized) what he/she thinks is proper usage means the ARTICLE "contain(s) previously unpublished synthesis of published material that conveys ideas not attributable to the original sources". So the tag describes the problem. If you do not want to fix the problem or tag the article so other editors can fix the problem the only other step is AfD. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Surprisingly unrealistic and pointless. Do you want to delete ship and boat for watercraft? Is this a real question, are you lonely or seeking a quarrel?
  • Fact: Refs and uses for "Superzoom" are plentiful
  • Fact: Article exists since 2004, since 2006 as an own article
  • Fact: YOU will NEVER find an exact definition !
Hopefully this helps and is the end of discussion. Tagremover (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update: A technology section was planed by me for some time and is done in the next months. Tagremover (talk) 10:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Errr.. uses (of) "Superzoom" may be valid for Wiktionary, but not Wikipedia. You need to read WP:V and WP:RS, Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not "sources", no matter how "plentiful" they are. Lots of articles from 2004 have been deleted, age does not = encyclopedic quality. And we are not talking about exact definitions, this article has no definitions. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Superzoom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OR list

[edit]

The list in this article is all WP:OR so I am removing it to talk, if someone wants to fulfill WP:BURDEN and supply references, feel free. So far it has NO references, an editor set the parameters, and editors add items based on those parameters. The list is also mostly a WP:LINKFARM. It was correctly removed as "unencyclopedic". "list must follow Wikipedia's content policies" WP:Source list. There was a suggestion it be move to List of super zoom lenses, but that corrects none of the problems. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR history

[edit]

Per this summary, there is a misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy here. Its not a problem of sources generated by "lens manufacturers themselves" (although that is a non-third party sources and also a problem). The problem here is citing sources that are WP:PRIMARY / "close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved" and writing a WP:OR history from that. "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation". So - if something that happened in 1983 was important then a current reliable secondary source has to say that. You can't cite a primary source from 1983 and then add your own original thought and claim that some event that happened in 1983 was significant. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 00:47, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to edit war over a fundamental misunderstanding of what a secondary source is. Cheers. Mliu92 (talk) 04:28, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The text that has been reverted twice is copied below, with two images retained because citations are embedded, annotated with comments on how the added references support the statements in footnotes:

A superzoom lens, also known as an ultrazoom or all-in-one,[a] is a type of photographic zoom lens with a large zoom ratio, which is the ratio of the longest and shortest focal lengths.[b] Typically, these span the range from wide angle to extreme long lens focal lengths, in one lens.[c][1][d][2][d]

History and design

In general, a superzoom lens is one with a zoom ratio greater than the 3× or 4× (e.g., 28-85 mm or 70-210 mm) of a standard zoom lens, with superzoom lenses typically having a zoom ratio of at least 10×.[e][1][d][3][f]

The development of superzoom lenses began in the late 1970s and early 1980s. In 1984, a "superzoom lens" group review for Popular Photography gathered 34 lenses with zoom ratios ranging from 4× to 6×, nearly all released after 1982, but noted "the golden era of the single, all-purpose, superwide-to-supertelephoto lens is not yet here".[4][g] The use of the term "superzoom" was muddled somewhat after Olympus released a bridge camera, named for "bridging the [market] gap" between point-and-shoots and single-lens reflex cameras,[5][h] as the Infinity SuperZoom 300 in 1988, as it was equipped with a modest 38–105 mm lens (2.8× zoom ratio).[6][7][i][j]

Early superzoom lenses
Kiron 28–210 mm lens (released 1985)[k]
Tamron model 171D, 28–200 mm, released in 1996 to update[8][l] the first superzoom (model 71D, 1992)[9][l]

Early examples of an "all-in-one" lens included Tokina's 35-200 mm lens (5.7× zoom ratio), which was said to "[embody] practically all focal lengths you are likely to need" in 1983.[10][m] Kiron Lenses released a 28–210 mm (7.5× zoom ratio) superzoom lens in 1985;[11][n] in the same year, Soligor released a 28–200 mm (7.1× zoom ratio) lens.[12][o] Tamron is credited with releasing the first autofocus superzoom in 1992, a lens covering 28–200 mm (7.1× zoom ratio) for 35mm film SLRs.[13][p] The Tamron lens has 16 elements in 14 groups; two aspheric lenses[9][l] and plastic components made the Tamron superzoom considerably more compact than the earlier Kiron.[14][q]

Advantages of using a superzoom include compositional flexibility, reduced need to swap lenses, and enhanced portability by consolidating the functionality of multiple lenses into one.[4][13][r]

However, due to trade-offs in the optical design, superzoom lenses are noted for having poorer optical quality at the extreme focal length ranges, mostly distortion at max wide angle and long lens ranges.[15][d][16][d] The long focal lengths normally have to be combined with image stabilization.[17][d][s]

Notes

  1. ^ Rephrased here to add "all-in-one". The equivalence of "superzoom" and "all-in-one" is established by the B&H Photo-Video reference (Vorenkamp) rather than putting an inline citation in the lede. The equivalence of the term "ultrazoom" is in the existing copy and no attempt is being made to establish a reliable source for that in this edit.
  2. ^ Copyedits were made here: the existing statement is "A superzoom or ultrazoom lens is a type of photographic zoom lens with unconventionally large focal length factors". The phrase "unconventionally large" uses the vague and nonspecific adjective "unconventionally". Also the phrase "focal length factors" could be considered WP:SYNTHESIS, as a Google Trends search for that specific phrase returns no results. "Zoom ratio" is more specific and its definition is verifiable.
  3. ^ Copyedits were made to this as well: the existing statement is the second half of the original sentence: "typically ranging from wide angle to extreme long lens focal lengths in one lens." Copyedits to make it a standalone sentence. However, there is significant synthesis in this statement as originally written: the range "from wide angle to extreme long lens" is subject to interpretation. A more specific range criterion of 25–600 mm is supported by a reference deleted by the reversion: O'Connor (Dec 1984), Popular Photography.
  4. ^ a b c d e f Source carried over from existing copy
  5. ^ Copyedits were made here. The existing sentence is "There is no clear definition of a superzoom lens, but the name generally covers lenses that have a range well above the 3× or 4× (e.g., 28-85 mm or 70-210 mm) of a standard zoom lens, with lenses being 10×, 12×, 18×, or above considered superzoom." Copyedits were made in the interest of being more concise and removing WP:EDITORIAL phrasing.
  6. ^ Based on my understanding of WP:NOR, this is not synthesis; the reference directly states this is a "super zoom" lens and gives a zoom ratio ("11.1X zoom range") described as "typically generous"; quoted text is provided in the inline reference. The referenced article from Popular Photography is a reliable, secondary source: WP:NOR describes a secondary source as "contain[ing] analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources". The range of focal lengths (18–200 mm) is a fact declared by the manufacturer which is verifiable, and the zoom ratio of 11.1× is not original research since it is stated in the reference and can be verified by simple arithmetic: 200/18=11.1×. This reference interprets the factual zoom ratio by calling it a typical characteristic of a "super zoom lens", which supports the phrasing used in the proposed copy ("superzoom lenses typically hav[e] a zoom ratio of at least 10×"). I feel it is reasonable to accept "super zoom" (with a space) as equivalent to the compound word "superzoom" (article title).
  7. ^ This article from Pop Photo (O'Connor, Dec 1984) is being used as a secondary source to support a contemporaneous interpretation of (1) a definition for "superzoom", (2) what is the typical "superzoom" lens zoom ratio, (3) the significance of the year 1982, and (4) the existence of an "all-purpose" superzoom lens. The specific quotation from the article that supports (1) and (2) is the second sentence: "I'm talking about 'superzooms,' optics with a focal-length (zoom) ratio of 4:1 or higher that offer powerful zooming and immense versatility." This defines the term "superzoom" and provides a specific criterion for zoom ratio (≥4×). This article also supports (3) 1982 as a landmark year, as a routine calculation based on a quotation from the article's second paragraph: "most of the almost-35 superzooms I have looked at have appeared on dealer's shelves in just the past two years." The added qualifier "nearly all released after 1982" is a summary of the original article per WP:SYNTHNOTSUMMARY using arithmetic: 1982=1984-2. The quoted phrase ("golden era ...") is provided (4) to note that no such "all-purpose" universal lens ("superwide-to-supertelephoto") existed at the time of publication (1984). There is a forward-looking interpretation/synthesis provided by the author for a zoom ratio of 24× ("maybe that dream of a 25→600-mm lens will some day become reality", on page 98 of the cited magazine), which supports the specific range of focal lengths stated in the lede ("typically ranging from wide angle to extreme long lens focal lengths in one lens").
  8. ^ This article is used as a secondary source to establish the term "bridge camera".
  9. ^ These articles by Keppler (1988) are used to verify the focal lengths and zoom range of the named camera (Infinity SuperZoom 300).
  10. ^ I agree this entire sentence is WP:SYNTH by asserting the name of this specific camera muddles the definition of the generic term "superzoom" and "modest" is an unnecessary editorial interjection. This sentence can be deleted without affecting the remainder of the proposed edits to the article.
  11. ^ Image included to illustrate lens discussed. Citation for date and characterization as "superzoom" provided in text (O'Connor (Feb 1985), Pop Photo).
  12. ^ a b c Primary reference from manufacturer used strictly to verify facts: model number, focal length range, release date, technical details, and purpose.
  13. ^ This reference is being used as a secondary source to establish a date (1983) and contemporaneous characterization ("all focal lengths you are likely to need" summarized as "all-in-one"). This characterization is an interpretation of factual data (focal length range of 35–200 mm and zoom ratio of 5.7× as being "all focal lengths you are likely to need"), which is provided by the source, not a synthesized statement. The assertion that "all-in-one" is synthesis contradicts WP:SYNTHNOTSUMMARY.
  14. ^ Secondary source calls the Kiron 28–210 lens "a large step toward the long-awaited 'unilens'—a single lens that will work well in the majority of picture-taking situations". The interpretation in this source is characterizing the criteria for a "unilens" using facts about that lens's focal length range (28–210 mm) and zoom ratio (7.5×). It is not synthesis to summarize the interpretation in the source as an example of "all-in-one" lens per WP:SYNTHNOTSUMMARY.
  15. ^ Secondary source which provides an interpretation comparing the Soligor lens with the Kiron lens, based on verifiable facts of focal length range and zoom ratios.
  16. ^ This secondary source states "let's give a deserved nod to lens maker Tamron for starting this [all-in-one] lens movement way back in 1992 with its Zoom Wide-Angle Telephoto 28-200mm f/3.8-5.6 Aspherical LD IF lens, now discontinued after 30 years. Designed for 35mm film cameras, its 7x zoom was regarded as the first true high-ratio zoom lens, or 'superzoom,' for interchangeable-lens cameras." It provides an interpretation (the Tamron lens is the first 'superzoom' or 'all-in-one' lens) and provides a hyperlink to a product page which states it is model 171A. It is clear this interpretation is inaccurate, as manual focus lenses covering a similar zoom ratio were released by Kiron and Soligor in 1985. Digging back into primary sources, 171A (1998) was released as a successor to 71A (1994), which itself was preceded by 71D, an autofocus lens released in 1992.[9] The primary source here for 71A states it is a manual-focus version of 71D. The adjective "autofocus" has been added to distinguish the Tamron lens (model 71D) from the earlier Kiron and Soligor lenses, which is supported by the Keppler reference (Pop Photo, Jan 1993).
  17. ^ Secondary source interprets facts about the lens optical and mechanical composition of the Tamron lens (model 71D is not stated, but is apparent from the description as "a 28–200mm autofocus zoom" with f/3.8–5.6 maximum aperture) as resulting in a lens that is "a mere shadow of other similar autofocus zooms and quite suitable in size and weight for keeping on your camera at all times as a general-purpose optic". This is summarized, not synthesized, in the proposed text as "considerably more compact than the earlier Kiron", which could be rephrased to "considerably more compact than lenses with similar zoom ratios".
  18. ^ These advantages are interpretations in the secondary references that were summarized as follows
    • "compositional flexibility": "One 'swoosh' of the zoom-lens control would effortlessly tighten or loosen my framing, or crop out distracting elements." (O'Connor, 1984) and "There is nothing like an all-in-one zoom lens when it comes to recomposing a scene without moving your feet (or swapping lenses). This flexibility is, often, a boon to creativity and creative compositions." (Vorenkamp, 2022)
    • "reduced need to swap lenses": "because I wasn't fussing with lens changes, I got a higher percentage of those fleeting shots that just don't wait for the photographer" (O'Connor, 1984) and "No need to carry or switch four separate lenses to go from wide to normal to portrait to extreme telephoto." (Vorenkamp, 2022)
    • "enhanced portability by consolidating the functionality of multiple lenses into one": "I was freed from the burden of shouldering a six-pack of single-focal-length optics to cover a variety of possible shooting situations" (O'Connor, 1984) and "Most all-in-one lenses are lightweight and fairly compact, especially when compared to telephoto lenses. Even with larger all-in-one lenses, when you consider all the lenses that this one lens might virtually replace in your camera bag, the size/weight argument is handily won by the all-in-one lens." (Vorenkamp, 2022)
  19. ^ No copyedits were made to this existing copy.

References

  1. ^ a b Grimm, Tom; Grimm, Michele (2009). "4". The Basic Book of Digital Photography: How to Shoot, Enhance, and Share Your Digital Pictures. Penguin Books.
  2. ^ J. Dennis Thomas, Nikon D3300 Digital Field Guide, John Wiley & Sons - 2014, page 124
  3. ^ Silber, Julia (April 2006). "Super Superzoom: Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G DX VR AF-S". Popular Photography. p. 73. Nikon's first digital-only super zoom lens has a typically generous 11.1X zoom range (27-300mm equivalent)
  4. ^ a b O'Connor, Thom (December 1984). "34 superzoom lenses compared". Popular Photography. pp. 62–71, 98. Retrieved 1 November 2023.
  5. ^ Booth, Stephen A. (September 1988). "Stealth SLR Bridges The Gap". Popular Mechanics. p. 46. Retrieved 1 November 2023.
  6. ^ Keppler, Herbert (May 1988). "SLR world: Bridge camera? New-concept camera? Are these SLRs or what?". Popular Photography. pp. 34–35, 100. Retrieved 1 November 2023.
  7. ^ Keppler, Herbert (October 1988). "SLR world: Chinon, Olympus breed new camera types—is one better?". Popular Photography. pp. 50–52, 84. Retrieved 1 November 2023.
  8. ^ "AF28-200mm F/3.8-5.6 LD Aspherical IF Super" (in Japanese). Tamron. Retrieved 1 November 2023.
  9. ^ a b c "AF28-200mm F/3.8-5.6 Aspherical IF Super" (in Japanese). Tamron. Retrieved 1 November 2023.
  10. ^ Rothschild, Norman (March 1983). "First Look: Tokina 35→200-MM AT-X f/3.5-4.5". Popular Photography. p. 25. Retrieved 1 November 2023.
  11. ^ O'Connor, Thom (February 1985). "Wow, What a Stretch!". Popular Photography. pp. 52–54, 81.
  12. ^ Pollock, Steve (December 1984). "New zooms stretch their range like you've never seen before". Popular Photography. p. 77. Retrieved 1 November 2023.
  13. ^ a b Vorenkamp, Todd (August 26, 2022). "The One-Lens Photography Tool: The All-in-One Zoom Buying Guide". B&H Photo-Video. Retrieved 1 November 2023.
  14. ^ Keppler, Herbert (January 1993). "SLR: It's the Battle of Britain on three legs! May both these ingenious devices, Benbo and UNI-LOC, win". Popular Photography. pp. 24–27.
  15. ^ Jon Sparks, Chiz Dakin, Outdoor Photography, Cicerone Press Limited - 2013, Hardware for the Outdoor Photographer
  16. ^ DK, Digital Photography Complete Course, Penguin - 2015, page 124
  17. ^ Chris Gatcum, The Beginner's Photography Guide, Dorling Kindersly Limited/Penguin - 2013, page 107
You need to read through WP:PST re: Primary sources - "created during the time period being studied" - "newspaper articles" (in this case we have magazine articles). In this historical essay you have written, you are the historian - i.e. you cite a primary source from a period of time and then make a claim about the significance of that event. In order to verify all of this you have to cite a historian. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 11:47, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I have read through WP:PST re: Primary and Secondary sources. I see the exact phrase "created during the time period being studied" has been extracted from the full sentence "Primary sources were either created during the time period being studied or were created at a later date by a participant in the events being studied (as in the case of memoirs). They reflect the individual viewpoint of a participant or observer." Selectively quoting "created during the time period being studied" without including "by a participant in the events being studied" creates a narrow definition that restricts contemporaneous sources strictly to being primary sources. I respectfully suggest the full definition should include the important restriction "by a participant". WP:PRIMARY provides the summary definition "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved.", which I feel is not particularly clear in making the link between "close to an event" and "accounts written by people who are directly involved" thanks to the WP:WEASEL "are often".
WP:PRIMARY also states: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." WP:SECONDARY defines a secondary source as "[one that] provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources.", which makes no restrictions on the age of what can be considered a secondary source. Contemporaneous articles may be secondary sources, as long as they meet the definition provided. The citations in the proposed copy are reliable, secondary sources, as they are published magazine articles which provide an interpretation of verifiable facts, for example, that a 4-6x zoom ratio (fact) was called a "superzoom" (interpretation) in 1984 (O'Connor (Dec 1984), Pop Photo). The author of the citation (magazine article) is not involved in the event (design / manufacturing of a lens).
As I noted in the initial response, I'm not going to re-revert the deletion. I'll leave the "essay" here in Talk to document the use of secondary sources, though. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 15:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but you are missing the concept of a primary source. They depend on context and do not depend on anyone being "directly involved". When you are talking about history then a contemporaneous source is a primary source,it has no "thought and reflection". A reliable secondary source may incorporate some of this material you found but it would be in a book or article written in the last few years by XXXXXX (the notable writer on the topic). None of these sources even come close to that. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tables of Superzooms?

[edit]

I have removed these added tables. Most of it is original research of commercial webpages and/or unverified, Even when you click through to the linked article. Also a large part of the information and entries are not Superzooms per led def and contained excessive listings of unexplained statistics per WP:NOTSTATS. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:25, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Superzoom&oldid=1208796856"